Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 below shows the average value of the median for the overall satisfaction question for each faculty for each of the six Australian and two international campuses. It is
pleasing to note in general, the 3,035 units offered on a campus are regarded as meeting aspirations. Exceptions are Education units at Caulfield and MNHS units at both
Parkville and South Africa, which are rated on average as needing improvement.
Table 1: Average UE median & number of units evaluated by faculty and campus –“
ove
r
al
ls
a
t
i
s
f
ac
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
ons
e
me
s
t
e
r12
010
Faculty/Campus
Art Des
Arts
Bus Eco
Edu
Eng
Info Tech
Law
MNHS
Pharm
Sci
Avg. location median
Total No. of units
Note:
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Berwick
4.00
1
3.72
26
3.98
34
3.78
13
3.86
74
Caulfield
4.02
132
4.03
210
4.01
209
3.33
4
3.92
82
3.83
71
3.98
708
Clayton
4.53
1
4.13
701
3.92
80
3.97
104
3.87
117
3.77
35
4.09
37
3.96
149
3.97
106
4.04
1,330
Gippsland
4.17
16
4.12
120
3.87
69
3.88
43
3.92
14
3.86
31
3.79
45
3.99
30
3.97
368
Parkville
3.25
1
3.83
55
3.82
56
Peninsula
4.03
1
3.90
25
3.99
49
3.80
92
3.87
167
South Africa
3.93
58
4.06
27
3.88
17
3.52
5
3.93
107
Sunway
4.11
34
3.99
60
3.89
65
3.66
20
3.71
10
3.87
8
3.81
28
3.91
225
Average
4.04
150
4.09
1,150
3.97
504
3.94
200
3.88
196
3.84
198
4.09
37
3.86
373
3.84
63
3.95
164
3.99
3,035
Throughout this report the number of units includes all modes for units with multiple modes available at a single campus/location and each individual unit as well as
the combined multi-level unit where multi-level units are available at a single campus/location.
1
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 below shows the average value of the median for the overall satisfaction question for each faculty offering units at locations other than a campus. In general, the 143
units of this type meet aspirations. The Information Technology unit offered at Hong Kong; the Arts units, Business and Economics units and Medicine Nursing and Health
Sciences units offered at Singapore; a
ndt
h
eEng
i
ne
e
r
i
nguni
t
sa
t“
USA”
,a
r
er
a
t
e
donAv
e
r
a
g
ea
sneeding improvement. Note that units offered at Hong Kong, Sunway,
USA and both Other locations in Australia and overseas are off-campus.
Table 2: Avg. UE medians & no. of units evaluated for other locations by faculty –“ove
r
al
ls
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n”que
s
t
i
ons
e
me
s
t
e
r120
10
Faculty/Campus
Arts
Bus Eco
Edu
Eng
Info Tech
Law
MNHS
Average median
Total Number of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
City
4.27
32
4.27
32
MMS-Alfred
4.50
1
3.94
37
3.96
38
OS Hong Kong
4.23
3
3.50
1
3.96
2
4.02
6
OS Singapore
3.14
7
3.50
4
4.11
7
3.80
5
3.50
10
3.60
33
OS Sunway
4.00
1
4.00
1
OS USA
3.25
2
3.25
2
Other AUS
4.39
6
4.39
6
Other OS
4.58
13
4.58
13
Prato
3.75
8
4.30
4
3.93
12
Average
4.06
34
3.70
5
4.15
10
3.25
2
3.75
6
4.27
36
3.85
50
4.01
143
2
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3 below shows the Average value of the media
nf
ort
h
e“
ov
e
r
a
l
ls
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on
”que
s
t
i
o
nf
orun
i
t
so
f
f
e
r
e
di
non-campus, off-campus and composite mode by each
faculty. In general, the units rated as needing improvement were composite and off-campus units. Exceptions are the on-campus MNHS units at South Africa which are
also rated on average as needing improvement. Apart from these, on-campus units are generally rated as meeting aspirations.
Table 3: Avg. UE median & (No. of units evaluated) by faculty and mode –“
o
ve
r
a
l
ls
at
i
s
f
ac
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
ons
e
me
s
t
er 1 2010
Faculty
Art Des
Arts
Bus Eco
Edu
Eng
Info Tech
Law
MNHS
Pharm
Sci
Average median
Total no. of units
Mode
Off
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Composite
Off
On
Berwick
4.00 (1)
3.72 (26)
3.98 (34)
3.78 (13)
3.86
74
Caulfield
3.93 (8)
4.03 (124)
4.00 (1)
3.80 (20)
4.05 (189)
3.71 (20)
4.04 (189)
3.33 (4)
3.50 (8)
3.97 (74)
3.77 (34)
3.89 (37)
3.98
708
Clayton
4.53 (1)
4.36 (5)
3.94 (32)
4.14 (664)
3.61 (1)
3.93 (79)
4.01 (5)
3.76 (32)
4.07 (67)
3.80 (10)
3.88 (107)
3.77 (35)
4.09 (37)
3.94 (2)
3.92 (55)
3.98 (92)
3.97 (106)
4.04
1,330
Gippsland
3.50 (2)
4.26 (14)
3.25 (1)
4.04 (69)
4.25 (50)
3.66 (44)
4.24 (25)
3.94 (22)
3.82 (21)
4.19 (5)
3.77 (9)
3.87 (19)
3.83 (12)
3.46 (7)
4.03 (16)
3.73 (22)
4.00 (1)
4.01 (13)
3.97 (16)
3.97
368
Parkville
3.25 (1)
3.78 (21)
3.87 (34)
3.82
56
Peninsula
4.03 (1)
3.90 (25)
4.18 (3)
3.98 (46)
3.50 (8)
3.83 (18)
3.82 (66)
3.87
167
South Africa
3.93 (58)
4.06 (27)
3.88 (17)
3.52 (5)
3.93
107
Sunway
4.11 (34)
3.99 (60)
3.89 (65)
3.66 (20)
3.71 (10)
3.87 (8)
3.81 (28)
3.91
225
Average
3.84 (10)
4.05 (140)
4.15 (7)
3.97 (121)
4.10 (1,022)
3.67 (65)
4.01 (439)
3.71 (9)
3.85 (57)
4.00 (134)
3.93 (15)
3.88 (181)
3.76 (27)
3.86 (171)
4.09 (37)
3.54 (17)
3.88 (124)
3.88 (232)
3.78 (21)
3.87 (42)
4.00 (1)
4.01 (13)
3.94 (150)
3.99
3,035
3
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ta
b
l
e4be
l
ow s
howst
hea
v
e
r
a
g
ev
a
l
ueo
ft
heme
di
a
nf
o
rt
he“
ov
e
r
a
l
ls
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on
”qu
e
s
t
i
onf
o
re
a
c
hf
a
c
ul
t
ybyuni
tl
e
v
e
l(
Lde
s
i
g
na
t
e
sauni
tl
e
v
e
la
tl
a
t
e
ry
e
a
ri
na
n
undergraduate program and M a combined unit). Faculties should note that there are some units that do not appear to comply with the Unit Coding Policy (eg. DPSY5101).
Units at all levels are evaluated as meeting aspirations in the first semester of 2010, with the exception of: Level 9 unit in Art and Design, Level 6 units in Arts and Level 9
units in Law as outstanding; Level 2 units in MNHS and Level 5 units in Pharmacy as needing improvement; and Level M unit in MNHS as needing critical attention.
Table 4: Avg. UE median & (no. of units evaluated) by faculty and unit level –“ove
r
a
l
ls
at
i
s
f
ac
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
o
ns
e
me
s
t
e
r1201
0
Faculty/ Level
Avg. Median
Art Des
No. of units
Avg. Median
Arts
No. of units
Avg. Median
Bus Eco
No. of units
Avg. Median
Edu
No. of units
Avg. Median
Eng
No. of units
Info Tech Avg. Median
No. of units
Avg. Median
Law
No. of units
Avg. Median
MNHS
No. of units
Avg. Median
Pharm
No. of units
Avg. Median
Sci
No. of units
Total Average median
Total Number of units
1
4.04
36
4.05
151
3.92
67
3.97
21
3.80
23
3.63
35
3.80
1
3.78
40
3.87
12
3.86
34
3.93
420
2
4.07
46
4.00
263
3.93
128
4.12
14
3.80
45
3.77
40
4.07
2
3.50
49
3.86
14
3.89
48
3.92
649
3
4.01
34
4.05
277
3.93
138
3.91
11
3.90
51
3.95
70
4.14
6
3.85
70
3.83
10
3.96
70
3.97
737
4
3.97
22
4.28
165
3.87
13
3.89
87
3.93
58
3.90
13
4.15
29
3.86
122
3.96
6
4.49
9
4.04
524
5
3.98
7
4.11
80
4.13
78
3.99
73
3.88
20
3.85
32
4.19
33
4.00
120
3.57
3
4.04
446
6
4.88
2
4.27
17
4.33
19
9
4.75
1
3.98
76
4.02
4
4.17
1
3.98
14
4.78
2
3.75
2
3.81
18
3.98
118
L
3.88
2
3.88
2
M
4.33
4
4.12
246
4.06
9
1.00
1
3.99
3
4.10
263
Average
4.04
150
4.09
1184
3.97
509
3.95
210
3.87
198
3.84
204
4.18
73
3.86
423
3.84
63
3.95
164
3.99
3,178
4
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 below provides a time series comparison of average medians for the 2,288 units with two previous evaluations in addition to the current evaluation for Semester 1,
2010. UW5-1 represents data for Semester 1 2010; UW5-2 depicts medians for the previous evaluation; and UW5-3 values are for the evaluation prior to UW5-2. In general
the perception of units does not show much change over the course of time with the great majority of units showing stability in being regarded as meeting aspirations. The
faculties may need to keep a watching brief on units that have improved out of the redoro
r
a
ng
ez
onet
oe
ns
ur
et
he
ydon’
ts
l
i
deba
c
k
,a
ndthe Arts units at Singapore, as
well as the MNHS units at some campuses/locations rated as needing improvement warrant investigation.
Table 5: Time series data for Avg. UE median by faculty and location –“ove
r
al
ls
at
i
s
f
ac
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
ons
e
me
s
t
e
r1201
0
Faculty/Campus
UW5-1
UW5-2
Art Des
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Arts
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Bus Eco
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Edu
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Eng
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
InfoTech UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Law
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
MNHS
UW5-3
Berwick
4.00
3.80
4.00
3.63
3.85
3.88
3.95
3.97
3.82
3.97
3.99
3.78
-
Caulfield
4.05
3.95
4.04
3.97
4.00
4.12
4.02
4.04
3.97
3.88
3.95
3.93
3.79
3.70
3.78
City
4.23
4.29
4.09
-
Clayton
4.53
4.65
4.00
4.10
4.11
4.12
3.87
3.90
3.92
3.95
3.84
3.83
3.86
3.71
3.74
3.87
3.82
3.52
4.08
4.18
4.14
3.91
3.96
3.95
Gippsland
4.20
4.03
3.95
4.13
4.11
4.11
3.89
3.79
3.93
3.91
3.65
3.73
3.77
3.30
3.38
3.96
3.29
3.39
3.77
3.76
3.92
MMSAlfred
4.08
4.11
4.14
OS
Hong
Kong
4.23
3.72
3.69
4.17
4.00
3.50
OS
Singapore
3.14
3.13
3.57
3.67
3.67
3.97
4.09
4.22
4.16
3.80
3.87
3.75
3.50
3.45
3.61
OS
Sunway
4.00
4.00
4.00
Other
AUS
4.58
4.25
3.63
-
Other
OS
4.65
3.75
4.38
-
Parkville
3.25
3.93
4.00
Peninsula
3.92
3.99
3.80
4.15
3.96
3.91
3.77
3.71
3.77
Prato
3.98
3.78
4.70
-
South
Africa
3.80
3.77
4.03
4.07
4.07
3.89
3.78
3.84
3.40
3.52
3.07
3.61
Sunway
3.83
3.69
3.92
4.00
3.97
3.95
3.90
3.78
3.74
3.75
3.64
3.92
3.72
3.85
3.87
Average
4.07
3.97
4.03
4.06
4.06
4.10
3.97
3.97
3.93
4.00
3.85
3.84
3.87
3.72
3.72
3.88
3.78
3.71
4.14
4.22
4.13
3.83
3.82
3.88
5
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5: Time series data for Avg. UE median by faculty and location –“ove
r
al
ls
at
i
s
f
ac
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
ons
e
me
s
t
e
r1201
0(
Cont
i
nue
d)
Faculty/Campus
UW5-1
UW5-2
Pharm
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Sci
UW5-3
Average of UW5-1
Average of UW5-2
Average of UW5-3
Berwick
3.88
3.94
3.83
Caulfield
3.97
3.97
3.99
City
4.23
4.29
4.09
Clayton
3.94
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.00
3.99
Gippsland
4.01
4.23
4.14
3.99
3.87
3.93
MMSAlfred
4.08
4.11
4.14
OS
Hong
Kong
4.22
3.79
3.65
OS
Singapore
3.56
3.57
3.73
OS
Sunway
4.00
4.00
4.00
Other
AUS
4.58
4.25
3.63
Other
OS
4.65
3.75
4.38
Parkville
3.92
4.00
4.00
3.89
4.00
4.00
Peninsula
3.92
3.85
3.82
Prato
3.98
3.78
4.70
South
Africa
3.86
3.82
3.85
Sunway
3.82
3.58
3.71
3.89
3.79
3.84
Average
3.92
4.00
4.00
3.93
3.97
3.97
3.98
3.95
3.96
6
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/01/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ta
b
l
e6,7a
nd8be
l
ow s
how t
hed
i
s
t
r
i
but
i
onofme
di
a
n
sf
ort
h
e“
ov
e
r
a
l
ls
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on”que
s
t
i
onf
ore
a
c
h
faculty. Uni
t
st
ha
two
ul
dh
a
v
epr
e
v
i
ous
l
ybe
e
nomi
t
t
e
da
s“
e
xc
e
p
t
i
ons
”ha
v
ebe
e
nf
l
a
g
g
e
da
ndt
he
i
rr
e
s
u
l
t
s
included in the pivot tables since semester 2, 2009, the distributions are presented separately for:
 all units,i
n
c
l
ud
i
ngt
ho
s
ewhi
c
hwo
ul
dha
v
ebe
e
nomi
t
t
e
da
s“
e
x
c
e
pt
i
ons
”i
npr
e
v
i
ouse
v
a
l
ua
t
i
o
ns, ie
with fewer than five responses, or more than 100% response rate (Table 6);
 the subset of units which have not been flagged as exceptions (75% of all units) - it is only this latter
group that can be strictly compared with previous evaluation results (Table 7);
 t
heun
i
t
st
ha
two
ul
dha
v
eb
e
e
np
r
e
v
i
ous
l
yomi
t
t
e
da
s“
e
xc
e
p
t
i
o
ns
”(
Ta
b
l
e8
)
.
There are substantial differences in the median distributions for these different types of unit. Results in
Table 6 are based on all units with non-zero responses, even when there may have been only one student in
the unit responding. The overall percentage of units classified as needing improvement and outstanding are
roughly comparable to last semester results, while the proportion rated as meeting aspirations is higher in
this semester but lower in needing critical attention.
However, whe
nt
heuni
t
sf
l
a
g
g
e
da
s“
e
xc
e
p
t
i
o
ns
”(
Ta
bl
e8
)a
nd“
non-e
xc
e
p
t
i
o
ns
”(
Ta
b
l
e7
)are separated
out, there are striking differences. The“
non-e
xc
e
pt
i
ons
”
,wh
i
c
hc
on
t
r
i
but
et
oa
bout75% ofa
l
lt
heuni
t
s
evaluated in the semester, behave roughly similarly to the median distributional patterns as observed in the
overall distribution of all units (Table 6)a
ndt
he‘
n
on-e
xc
e
pt
i
on
s
’i
npr
e
v
i
ou
ss
e
me
s
t
e
r
.The “
e
xc
e
pt
i
ons
”
units (Table 8) are far more likely to be given ratings at either extreme (very dissatisfied or very satisfied)
with about half of them seen as meeting aspirations.
Table 6: Percentage of a
l
luni
t
sf
a
l
l
i
ngi
nt
oe
ac
h“
t
r
a
f
f
i
cl
i
ght
”c
a
t
e
g
or
ys
e
me
s
t
e
r12010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Art Des
Percentage of units
No. of units
Arts
Percentage of units
No. of units
Bus Eco
Percentage of units
No. of units
Edu
Percentage of units
No. of units
Eng
Percentage of units
No. of units
Info Tech
Percentage of units
No. of units
Law
Percentage of units
No. of units
MNHS
Percentage of units
No. of units
Pharm
Percentage of units
No. of units
Sci
Percentage of units
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.
00
10
6.7%
93
7.9%
24
4.7%
16
7.6%
14
7.1%
22
10.8%
1
1.4%
49
11.6%
5
7.9%
5
3.0%
239
7.5%
10.2%
3.01-3.59
13
8.7%
108
9.1%
64
12.6%
23
11.0%
28
14.1%
30
14.7%
3
4.1%
45
10.6%
6
9.5%
27
16.5%
347
10.9%
11.1%
3.60-4.69
107
71.3%
783
66.1%
388
76.2%
151
71.9%
151
76.3%
144
70.6%
63
86.3%
295
69.7%
52
82.5%
123
75.0%
2,257
71.0%
66.4%
≥4.
70
20
13.3%
200
16.9%
33
6.5%
20
9.5%
5
2.5%
8
3.9%
6
8.2%
34
8.0%
0.0%
9
5.5%
335
10.5%
12.2%
Total
150
100.0%
1,184
100.0%
509
100.0%
210
100.0%
198
100.0%
204
100.0%
73
100.0%
423
100.0%
63
100.0%
164
100.0%
3,178
100.0%
100.0%
7
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/07/2010
Unit Evaluation Summary Report –Semester 1, 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tabl
e7
:Pe
r
c
e
nt
agef
al
l
i
ngi
nt
oe
ac
hc
at
e
gor
ye
x
c
l
udi
ngpr
e
vi
ous“e
x
c
e
pt
i
ons
”s
e
me
s
t
e
r12010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Art Des
Percentage of units
No. of units
Arts
Percentage of units
No. of units
Bus Eco
Percentage of units
No. of units
Edu
Percentage of units
No. of units
Eng
Percentage of units
No. of units
Info Tech
Percentage of units
No. of units
Law
Percentage of units
No. of units
MNHS
Percentage of units
No. of units
Pharm
Percentage of units
No. of units
Sci
Percentage of units
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.
00
4
3.5%
32
4.3%
11
2.4%
8
4.4%
9
5.0%
12
7.9%
1
1.4%
30
10.9%
3
5.5%
2
1.5%
112
4.7%
7.5%
3.01-3.59
12
10.4%
74
9.9%
59
12.7%
21
11.5%
28
15.5%
24
15.8%
3
4.2%
32
11.6%
5
9.1%
24
17.8%
282
11.8%
11.2%
3.60-4.69
85
73.9%
582
77.7%
367
79.1%
137
75.3%
140
77.3%
115
75.7%
63
87.5%
205
74.5%
47
85.5%
106
78.5%
1,847
77.6%
74.0%
≥4.
70
14
12.2%
61
8.1%
27
5.8%
16
8.8%
4
2.2%
1
0.7%
5
6.9%
8
2.9%
3
2.2%
139
5.8%
7.4%
Total
115
100.0%
749
100.0%
464
100.0%
182
100.0%
181
100.0%
152
100.0%
72
100.0%
275
100.0%
55
100.0%
135
100.0%
2,380
100.0%
100.0%
Tabl
e8
:Pe
r
c
e
nt
ageo
fpr
e
vi
ous“e
x
c
e
pt
i
ons
”uni
t
sf
al
l
i
ngi
nt
oe
a
c
hc
a
t
e
go
r
yf
ors
e
me
s
t
e
r12010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Art Des
Percentage of units
No. of units
Arts
Percentage of units
No. of units
Bus Eco
Percentage of units
No. of units
Edu
Percentage of units
No. of units
Eng
Percentage of units
No. of units
Info Tech
Percentage of units
No. of units
Law
Percentage of units
No. of units
MNHS
Percentage of units
No. of units
Pharm
Percentage of units
No. of units
Sci
Percentage of units
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.
00
6
17.1%
61
14.0%
13
28.9%
8
28.6%
5
29.4%
10
19.2%
-
3.01-3.59
1
2.9%
34
7.8%
5
11.1%
2
7.1%
6
11.5%
-
3.60-4.69
22
62.9%
201
46.2%
21
46.7%
14
50.0%
11
64.7%
29
55.8%
-
19
12.8%
2
25.0%
3
10.3%
127
15.9%
17.1%
13
8.8%
1
12.5%
3
10.3%
65
8.1%
10.9%
90
60.8%
5
62.5%
17
58.6%
410
51.4%
47.8%
≥4.
70
6
17.1%
139
32.0%
6
13.3%
4
14.3%
1
5.9%
7
13.5%
1
100.0%
26
17.6%
6
20.7%
196
24.6%
24.2%
Total
35
100.0%
435
100.0%
45
100.0%
28
100.0%
17
100.0%
52
100.0%
1
100.0%
148
100.0%
8
100.0%
29
100.0%
798
100.0%
100.0%
8
Office of Planning and Quality –Monash Quality Unit
22/07/2010